Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Angelica di Silvestri

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Jack Frost (talk) 23:48, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Angelica di Silvestri

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Possible violation of ~~BLP1E and~~ NPOV because there are no sources to balance the negative coverage. Please see article talk page for details. An IP claiming to be the person in the bio asked for the claims to be balanced. A new SPA is trying to CSD/PROD the article which I've reverted. Moving it to AfD for broader consideration after personally trying to clean it up. Vikram Vincent 19:05, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The sources may not pass WP:RS thus posing problems. Vikram Vincent 04:42, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Vikram Vincent 19:05, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Vikram Vincent 19:05, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:11, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:11, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes WP:NOLYMPICS by virtue of appearing at the Olympic games and WP:GNG by virtue of the very coverage cited as a reason for deletion. Other issues can be handled via page protection and editing. WP:BLP1E does not apply to people who are notable for a single appearance in the Olympics - the Olympic guidelines make that quite clear. Arguably a speedy keep since nom hasn't actually advocated for deletion and is merely repeating the request of a WP:SPA who isn't even confirmed to be the subject. In any case, she received coverage for competing at the Olympics before the articles in question were published, and those sources are in the article as well. Not a deletion issue. Smartyllama (talk) 01:44, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Smartyllama I forgot to mention the problematic sources which may not pass RS criteria. Vikram Vincent 04:43, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Vincentvikram That's an editing issue, not a deletion issue. She's notable independently of those sources so it's irrelevant to this AfD. Smartyllama (talk) 15:35, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The subject clearly passes WP:NOLYMPICS. But the article needs clean up. Regards Kichu🐘 ^Discuss 07:22, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep in addition to WP:NOLYMPICS, it looks like she also passes WP:GNG. Additional sources not in the article currently also include ones from the New York Daily News and the NYT. Best, GPL93 (talk) 20:58, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per above Passes WP:NOLYMPICS. LucyLucy (talk) 15:48, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- LucyLucy blocked for being a sock. Vikram 20:13, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Can an admin please close this AFD as withdrawn. Will try to improve the article with the feedback and new sources presented here. Thanks. Vikram 17:31, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure if that would be considered a procedural nomination since you were stating someone else's concerns, in which case it's ineligible for speedy keep. If it's not procedural, you can close it yourself as nom. However that's a moot point since it's been seven days and can be closed as plain keep. Probably eligible for an NAC but as I'm involved I can't do it myself. Smartyllama (talk) 21:32, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.